Tricky Dicky Tierney

Tricky Dicky Tierney is an absent political candidate whose reputation takes shape in the talk of men canvassing for him: they doubt his Nationalist principles, complain that he has not paid, and invoke his family’s modest background against his public standing. His characterization rests on the gap between political loyalty and practical self-interest.

Political Allegiances and the Royal Address

When the men discuss a proposed address of welcome to Edward Rex, Mr O’Connor says that their candidate will not vote for it because he is running on the Nationalist ticket. Mr Hynes challenges that assurance, asking whether the candidate is Tricky Dicky Tierney and saying that he knows him. Mr O’Connor concedes that Hynes may be right, leaving Tierney’s position uncertain rather than confirming how he will vote.

The exchange links Tierney’s reputation to a broader argument about Irish nationalism and political deference. The men object to welcoming a foreign king, while the ivy leaf in Mr Hynes’s lapel recalls the absent Parnell: Hynes says that if Parnell were alive, there would be no talk of such an address. Tierney is measured against this ideal of political resistance, but the conversation provides suspicion, not a direct account of his decision.

Money and the Canvassing Campaign

The candidate’s political uncertainty is joined to a more immediate grievance: his supporters want him to supply money. After Mr Henchy reports that the intermediary he calls the little shoeboy has put him off, Mr Hynes identifies the failure as characteristic of Tierney. Henchy then complains that Tierney will not pay him directly, instead saying he must speak to Mr Fanning and that he has spent a lot of money. The conversation presents campaign work as dependent on funds that the canvassers have not received.

Henchy’s anger turns personal as well as financial. He calls Tierney tricky and mean, mocks his eyes, and recalls that Tierney’s father kept a second-hand shop in Mary’s Lane. These are Henchy’s accusations and recollections, not an independent account of Tierney’s conduct or origins; their force lies in the way a political dispute becomes an attack on the candidate’s character and social background. Mr O’Connor’s question about whether the story is true leaves that claim unverified.

Characterization Through Absence

Tierney never appears in the supplied scenes. His character is assembled from the competing claims of men who are canvassing, waiting for money, or arguing over what their candidate might do. Mr O’Connor initially speaks for the candidate’s expected Nationalist vote, but Hynes’s challenge unsettles that confidence; Henchy’s complaint then makes the practical cost of the campaign’s uncertainty visible.

The resulting portrait is pointed but limited: Tierney is presented as a possible political opportunist and an unreliable source of campaign support, yet the evidence consists entirely of other people’s judgments. The contrast between the Nationalist ticket and the suspected royal address, and between public political credentials and unpaid canvassing work, makes his reputation part of the story’s wider depiction of political bargaining.